atheism donation drive!

Our annual donation drive is a response to the ebola outbreak, please donate to help those affected.Click to Donate | Discussion | Rating
Donate and put your username in the comment to receive incredible FSM flair!

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome.

The reason my grandpa stopped taking his family to Catholic church: He's a pretty righteous man who used to believe that the church was important. Therefore, he always donated (anonymously) generous amounts to it. One day, his church decided to name those who weren't giving "enough" and he was one.

I was still helping out with PA, lighting and set-up for my church after I'd lost any belief in a god. That's all I did, just help out. It was kind of interesting and I was in a sensitive situation when it came to faith and friends/family.

Then the treasurer pulled me aside and told me he'd noticed that I wasn't on his records as a tithe-giver. Motherfucker sealed the deal - I never went back.

That's some fucked up shit right there. I mean really, time = money and you were donating your time. Some rude/greedy motherfuckers right there. I didn't have a sudden "churches are fucked up and that's why I'm atheist" moment like a lot of us here, but if I ever did believe.. this would do it. And they wonder why people are falling more and more out of line with their bullshit.

Unfortunately I was a little too taken aback (and distracted - this was during the sound test with not much time left before the service started) to speak my mind, or I would have explained why acting like a loan shark is not an acceptable way to maintain a communal congregation.

My wife is Catholic. I used to help the local Knights of Columbus chapter with charity work, building houses for HfH, cleaning parks, etc. I figured it was my way of supporting the wife and helping the community.

One day the guy who ran the group found out I was an atheist. He told me to either convert or not show up to help again. The choice was easy for me, and now they can't find enough people to help. Serves them right.

Indeed. I was flabbergasted. I don't know if he saw me as a threat or what. Every once in a while I'll join my wife for mass (it's amusing to envision Jesus coming to life and terrorizing the congregation) and we'll see the guy, and he won't even look at me. Wonderful example of a pious man.

Ironically giving to a church or church organisation is the least effective way to give to charity. A lot of that money never sees it's way to helping anyone other than the organisation that runs it. In the US religion is a billion $ industry and there's some painfully rich companies and individuals that benefit from it. Giving in Ireland has dropped so much that the church is in severe financial crisis because that was all that was keeping them alive - as businesses they we're total failures.

Other businesses in Ireland do very well from advice services, marriages, naming ceremonies, funerals, galas and localised events. But that's besides the point. Churches aside - giving to Christian charities often does not actually result in any charitable act due to their high running costs and actual work performed once they get the money.

The Salvation Army in the was hit by scandal after it was proven to be skimming millions in to private firms and there's been plenty of cases of "pilgrimages" turning up in Africa to hand out bibles and doctrine with no benefit to the local population, not to mention the horrific scandal of Mother Theresa. Some churches have massive surpluses of land and property that it could easily sell to give to the poor if they wanted. The US churches own $81 billion worth of tax-exempt real estate in Texas and $1.3 billion in Los Angeles county alone.

But the fact they ARE run like businesses goes to show how poorly they perform. The sex abuse scandal has caused the most damage and in many cases near bankruptcy - but unnecessary costs of paying inactive clergy, lobbying the senate, maintaining large numbers of very expensive church buildings used by only a small number of people and paying out silly salaries is just the tip of the iceberg.

As someone who works at a charity, you couldn't be further from the truth. Charities should be run like businesses, the difference is that the profit is put towards helping other people and not put into personal pockets.

Marketing, revenues, salaries, insurance, overhead expenses, etc.. These are all parts of businesses & charities that need to be properly managed. Donations are simply a form of revenue that is usually derived from successful marketing. In the past, marketing through fear was all the Church needed. Thankfully, people are beginning to learn that this is not a good model to help the world.

The corruption of charities starts in similar ways to real businesses. Administrators start believing that their salary isn't high enough, so they raise it or start to funnel money through hidden "overhead" costs.

Many of the churches around Canada are starting a program where in order to belong to the church you much guarantee a certain percentage of your income. Failure to produce documents proving you've donated enough will result in being kicked out of the church.

Now to be fair, I believe this is mostly the Mormons. In very religious cities, you'll see all churches doing it.

According to Christianity, at least, private deeds are better than public ones. See Matthew 6:1-4:

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

Sadly, this has become true. I would state that most "Christians" are not really Christians. TBH, as someone who knows and believes the Bible, I would rather have those "Christians" Atheists, or stating that they have no firm belief in anything.

Just to attack a small piece of your comment, because I don't like the phrasing, just because someone's an atheist doesn't mean they don't believe in anything. It just means they don't believe in a god. Those are not the same thing at all.

Ok, I worded that wrong. I Should have put an or in there. I actually had this convo with a friend the other day. That there is a difference between not believing in a god and not believing in anything. in a more specific way of just because someones athiest doesn't make them a nihilist.

This type of mentality was hammered into our heads when i was a kid and went to synagogue as well - the best mitsva is the one that revives no reward and is done anonymously or isn't even noticed.

The whole afterlife thing was never really touched upon so "don't be a dick" and "stand your ground for what you think is right" were covered as a substitutes.

The side effect was a bunch of agnostics/atheists. Here's a religion (or, at least subset of that religion) that survived the holocust, but may die out due to its own design (pushing reason to the point of breeding atheists and agnostics).

No, there's actually been studies done that show if people associate a situation with being watched they tend to act more benevolent. One particular study showed that simply posting a picture of an eye, no text, cut down on the number of sugar packets employees would use in their breakroom. It's a very primal response and OP's link is just an affirmation of this psychological phenomenon.

Small tangent? Oddly enough, a lot of broadcast network logos are the shape of an eye, and a lot of private sector corporations, e.g. Time Warner, have a logo in the shape of an eye. I wonder what the psychological impact of this is in the general media. Hm. It could be a correlation thing, but I think correlations are the shadiest thing since one-tailed tests.

Probably has something to do with the divide between one's personal faith and the church as a social institution. Much of the Catholic church is based on what Paul said as the Bishop of Rome, not Jesus as a preacher of Judaism; thus why we have Protestants because they decided that the Pope was corrupt and not actually God's spokesperson.

...you're probably right, I'm not the biggest expert on theological history and sometimes get mixed up. I think to be specific, the Bishops of Rome/the Popes claim to be descendents of Peter and Paul for their various authorities. Not entirely certain as to the specific details though.

What I remember is Paul went to all these cities to spread the word. Each city got a Bishop in charge of their area. At one point the Roman Bishop thought he was the badass and said he was in charge. All the other Bishops laughed. Thus the great schism and the Roman Catholic church split from eastern orthodox. Thus there is no eastern orthodox 'pope' just bishops in different cities/countries.

Is a little more complicated than that. Largely, it was the general state of affairs in the church as a whole during the mid and late 16th century. Selling of indulgences and all that jazz, not simply a "we don't like that guy".

You're going too deep. People are dumb animals and they look to receive status in their tribe. Their charity isn't about anything more than attempting to elevate status, whether they realize it or not. But, for reference, what does the book say about people who aren't religious? Both in view and out of.

I think this is proof that deep, deep down, they don't really believe in gods, even though they refuse to admit that even to themselves. If they really did believe that the gods were watching their every move, they'd work hard to impress the gods by helping others anonymously, even when people weren't watching.

Yes, that's exactly what it said. The study is comparing the religious to everyone else. Here it is with the implied comparisons in brackets.

"Religious people are more likely [than the nonreligious] to help in situations in which helping makes them look good to themselves or others. They are not more likely [than the nonreligious] to help, however, in private situations in which no one will know that they helped."

The grammar of the second sentence makes no sense unless there's an implied comparison to the nonreligious. It would be like saying "I'm more likely to carry an umbrella when it rains, but not more likely when it isn't raining"

well according to the book, they do the same as everyone else when no one is watching, but do more when people are watching.

Thus overall they are doing more? I mean If a billionaire goes around announcing and running tv ads telling everyone that he donated 10 million dollars to starving children... wouldn't this be better than not donating the money at all?

If it means anything, my church is constantly doing community service, particularly for FISH, and we always refuse media attention, such as newspaper articles that have been requested of us. Additionally, last year while I was still back home, the church did a mission trip in our home town and everyday was something new. We wore shirts that alluded to us being in from a church but didn't actually say our church's name because the idea was to do right in the name of God and not the name of our church. Nonetheless, I think this post has validity to it. I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

A group of people who meet up in a church every week going on a mission trip together is far from a private situation. Humbly refusing someone's praise and attention makes you look good in front of them, too. I think the study is only dealing with completely anonymous donations.

Yet it looks good if you turn down a cash award for returning a family's lost puppy. With your logic, you could say doing the aforementioned act of kindness would be selfish in itself. The way I see it, I could have gotten a job working at the old folk's home like any of my friends. Instead, I worked with a group who took no fame, credit, or money for their actions. Some people just enjoy helping others, whether theist or not.

[1] The greatest level, above which there is no greater, is to support a poor person by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand until he need no longer be dependent upon others .

[2] A lesser level of charity than this is to give to the poor without knowing to whom one gives, and without the recipient knowing from who he received.

[3] A lesser level of charity than this is when one knows to whom one gives, but the recipient does not know his benefactor.

[4] A lesser level of charity than this is when one does not know to whom one gives, but the poor person does know his benefactor.

[5] A lesser level than this is when one gives to the poor person directly into his hand, but gives before being asked.

[6] A lesser level than this is when one gives to the poor person after being asked.

[7] A lesser level than this is when one gives inadequately, but gives gladly and with a smile.

Second, it's merely saying that if a religious person were to encounter a situation that could benefit from their assistance, they're more likely to render aid if others are watching.

I'm having trouble figuring out what your line of logic is here. What do you mean when you say religious people help more? Help more than what? Help more than themselves? It's not a comparison between religious and non-religious people if that's where you were going.

I don't see where it says religious people are equally [as] likely [as non-religious people] to help in a private situation.

I see where it says that they are not more likely to help in private [than they are likely in public]. Not only are you assuming not more likely = equally likely, but you are assuming they are saying equally likely compared to non-religious people. Neither is true.

There is a comparison between non-religious and religious people. But the issue of being more or not more likely is a comparison of public vs private.

As far as the comparison, let's break it out like this.

"Religious people are more likely to help when it makes them look good than they are likely to help in private situations in which no one knows they have helped."

The comparison would be:

"Non-Religious people are not more likely to help when it makes them look good than they are likely to help in private situations in which no one knows they have helped."

This is showing that Non-religious people will help equally regardless of public or private, while religious people will help more in public than they do in private. It's not saying one helps more than the other. It's possible that even with a non-religious person being helpful equally in public and private, they are still less helpful than a religious person who is mostly publicly helpful. You can't determine which is more helpful overall from this passage.

You are interpreting it to say that if a religious person and a non-religious person saw someone in need, there is a better chance the religious person will help him in public than the non-religious person. That is not what the passage is saying.

A single religious person is more likely to help in a public setting. That does, in fact, mean that the same religious person would be less likely to help in a private situation.

Your point would only be valid if they were comparing multiple people. As if it was being said that religious people are more likely to help in public than non religious people. If that's what was being said, you could then say that this doesn't mean that religious people are less likely than non religious people to help in private, just that they aren't more likely. But it's not a comparison between religious and non-religious people, so that doesn't apply.

I've only studied Kant* in a really brief, cursory way but if I understand it correctly, his idea of morality is that you can never do something moral as merely a means to an end (and I think I kind of agree with this).

The example one of my professors gave me was this: there are two young brothers who have a sick grandmother. They both decide to bring her soup. Brother 1 does it because he cares about his grandmother and wants to see her get well; Brother 2 does it because he expects her to reward him with something for being so thoughtful.

From a utilitarian point of view, the "net good" is the same, but one of them does it out of pure love and one does it expecting personal gain. Personally I don't think the two are equal.

Does it make you feel better when you help other people? I hope so, or you would stop helping them. So why do you help them? Because seeing them do better makes you feel better. That's what empathy is. Why is this a bad thing?

Alright I guess that's true, and when you put it that way it doesn't make it seem so bad. What upsets me I guess is when someone says "you only help other people because it makes YOU feel good" It makes it sound like no one cares about anyone but themselves, and the only reason you would help someone else is because it ultimately benefits you.

Which I guess, when I think about it, is still what you're saying, but it makes me feel better the way you said it.

If you want some background information on the idea that people are motivated exclusively by self-interest (and the arguments for and against), you may want to check out the articles on psychological egoism here, here and here.

Not firsthand but what springs to mind is that guy in NYC or whatever who jumped in front of a train to save a little kid a couple years ago. Things of that nature; putting yourself directly in harm's way for the sake of another with no obvious benefit to yourself.

I guess you could say that man was an outlier but here's a less dramatic example: a few months ago I was at a coffee shop. I got the wrong coffee and it tasted like shit, so I got another and gave the other one to an old lady who was sitting in a booth nearby with nothing to drink. Obviously made me feel better about myself, but if I hadn't thrown it away it would have been wasted. Man this whole thread is just making me sad the more I think about it.

Also, the man is not an outlier. He presumably wouldn't be able to live with himself if he let the other person die infront of him. If he could have, he presumably would have left the person there just like all the other people in the crowd did.

You have to think about how human social interaction and communication works. We read other people and understand what they are thinking at a given moment from what they are currently saying, their body language, and facial expressions. We do this by associating the expressions we see and hear to what we ourselves would think and feel if we were doing exactly that. To analyze what is happening in the mind of the person we are watching, we replicate everything that is happening in their brain with our own brain, and so our own mind feels an image of the feelings that person has.

You could think, the man diving in front of the train to push the kid aside was only really, really badly wanting to make the feelings go away, that he was imagining the kid would have seeing the train coming. For a healthy mind, it is still always clear that those images are the feelings and thoughts of someone else, not its own. The man also had his own fear and he ignored it deliberately.

Humans are not that simple to be thought of as purely selfish at all times. There are weird things happening in the mind. There is stuff that does not make sense, for example weird fantasies that feel great imagined, but at the same time there is knowledge it would feel bad if happening in reality.

I'm right there with you. It bugs me so much when people freak out about charitable acts being done for the "wrong reasons." I don't think those being helped give a bleeding fuck about the reasons of whoever helps them. So a guy gloats about donating to starving kids, cashes in some real-life karma. Does that "cheapen" his charity? Are those starving kids getting less food because of it? Are those starving kids going to decline the food because the guy only gave it to them so he could get laid by this hot activist chick he likes? No. They're going to say, "SWEET! I get to eat tonight!" And the guy gets laid. It's win-win -- the deed got done, the kids have food. The only people who lose are the ones who get their knickers in a twist about his reasons. Coincidentally, these people tend not to donate anything. I'll take the guy who selfishly donates part of his check so he can get laid over the person who keeps it all and scolds the first guy. At least the first guy's helping, despite his reasons.

Exactly this: It doesn't say that religious people do less good deeds than non-religious people in private, it says that they don't do more- but that they do do more in public. To me this says that religious people do, in fact, do more good deeds than non-religious people.

This, to me, makes the atheists in this thread seem quite silly. They are making themselves feel better by pointing out that the religious folk are doing the good deeds on aggregate for recognition, but at least they're doing good deeds in the first place as opposed to sitting on the side line mocking people who do good deeds.

That is, does religion foster prosocial behavior (sic)? The answer is yes on some measures, but not all. People who attend religious services report on services that they give more money to charities, and engage in more volunteer work, than do people who do not attend religious services (Brooks, 2006). When it comes to what people do however—not just what they report on surveys—the story is a little bit more complicated.

See green highlight in pic.

What it says is that people who attend religious services tend to do more public good than those who don't. However, once that good deed is no longer able to be observed by the public or others in their community, these same people are no more likely to perform good deeds. In fact, it makes no mention of people who are just religious (just relooked at pic, i believe this an editor's mistake, I believe it is meant to say "people who attend religious services," rather than "religious people"), but instead on people who attend religious services vs. those who don't. Please note, one does not have to attend religious services to be religious, so people who take this as a comparison between theists and atheists are mistaken.

because a segment of them say "look at this good thing i'm doing. sky-man! you better believe in sky-man!" and then don't do the same thing when no one is around to watch (except supposed omnipotent sky-man). but they want everyone to live their lives by sky-man rules 24/7. the pure hypocrisy of it should be enough to question the motivation.

Isn't it kind of obvious that you're going to do things a lot more if doing a good deed is based on inner values than perceived image? Then no matter where you were or who was there, you would be performing a good deed. You don't spend your whole day around other people and I'd be willing to bet charity while being watched doesn't apply when the people around you are family members.

Further more it means the person isn't acting upon a well defined sense of morals but are instead tricking themselves into believing they are. If they need other people to to do something good, then that's not really a good deed to them, that's trying to fit societal norms. If the culture changes, whether it be because of time or the person themselves is just in another part of the world, then their "good deeds" change as well. The result is all the societal norms throughout history that today we find atrocious and even current ones. If the culture these people live in perpetuates verbally and physically assaulting LGB&T individuals as a good deed, that's what they'll do.

tl:dr; If you morality is dependent on the perception of others, then you don't really have any morality.

"[But] take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise you will have no heavenly recompense from your heavenly Father. When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
Matthew 6:1-8

Laboratory studies have shown that images of eyes can cause people to behave more cooperatively in some economic games, and in a previous experiment, we found that eye images increased the level of contributions to an honesty box.

In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

I don't think we can use religion as a independent variable to draw solid conclusions

, but the swedes be interesting people

Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don't believe in God.

Agreed, not rigorous but most fascinating. I hypothesize that the rational for the distinctly Scandinavian atheism is along the lines of "Clearly no loving God would make people live through multiple winters in Sweden."
(-=

So this in combination with an NPR story I heard the other day means that Environmentalism IS basically a religion. The story was how people would do more pro environmental things to look good in front of other people rather than something more effective that no one would see.

I've seen a lot of people asking, so the textbook this is from is the 7th edition of "Social Psychology" by Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, and Robin M. Akert. The reference is made to "Religion and the Individual" by Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis.

hm... id certainly see that being the case for "religious people" but not so much for some spiritual people. i remember back when i was a christian, i liked to study the bible for myself, and jesus taught when doing charitable deeds to not let your right hand know what your left hand was doing, and to do them in secret. and i tried to follow that. i know you all hate on Christians, and honestly 99% of them deserve it. but i think jesus was actually a cool dude. that being said i am not religious.

Much more interesting is that what predicted if theology candidates stopped to help someone was whether they were in a rush or not to make a speech on-you guessed it-helping people, called the "Good Samaritan" experiment and replicated by at least one hidden camera TV show with some variations, I believe. An often quoted experiment in social psychology that shows how situational, not individual, factors determine behavior. Also in line with results showing that best predictor of whether someone will make a recommended trip to a health clinic is physical proximity to the clinic.

tl:dr whether we help people is strongly influenced by things like whether we're in a rush, regardless of personal characteristics.

I've noticed this with religious people. One of my soon to be former housemates is particularly overly active in the community to help out with his church and clubs at school, but is something of a deadweight around the house. On the other hand, one of my best friends of all time is also religious, but much more of a shut in and not very socially outgoing but is one of the genuinely nicest people I know.

a cherry picked quote from a textbook aimed to talk trash about people who will likely never read it

trash talking people who at least have good intentions most of the time. Likely who have done more good in the world at their churches then you have ever, or ever will attempt.

instead of posting weak attempts at putting down faceless followers of a religion you don't understand, why don't you try something new. try FLOODING r/atheism/ with acts of kindness and goodness that you did for NO reason whatsoever. Not to show religious people how much better you are than them; but just because you felt like it.

rather than insinuating that atheists are better people than everyone else, why don't you start showing it rather than wasting your time on reddit, releasing patronizing little one liners and halfhearted, misguided, ineffective attempts at being "one of the cool kids."

Kant said that every good action should be disinterested, in contrast Nietzsche say that good action should be done with passion. However religion say that good action should be done when it make you look good.
I'd go with Nietzsche here, as always.

This describes my ex rather accurately. She went super fake religious and basically everything she would do was based around making herself look good even if had to lie to accomplish it. Behind closed doors though she was the most selfish self absorbed scum bag you ever meet.

The term "religious" has a large grey area, fuzzy boundaries. (Not because the definition is unclear, but because people are unclear) And the specific conclusion that they are more likely to help when watched than when not.. quiet honestly sounds like a biased experiment. What were the intentions behind that scientific quest? What were they trying to find? Anyways, people should always be judged individually.

This has probably already been said on here, but that's not true. Anyone who TRULY follows their religion isn't looking to be praised, just to help. Which is actually just following morality. Which for theists comes from God, and from atheists usually from within one's self (from what I have heard anyways.)

I was once homeless with my family, living in a car, a man gave me mother the money so we could spend christmas in a hotel room. I like to think that he did that out of the goodness of his heart and I believe that he did not get anything back from it.
Sadly the statement is true, most people are selfish and always want a pat on the back. I guess in my little bubble I prefer to think that there are good people out there still.

well, this isnt mentioned b/c the header denotes that the section focuses on prosocial behavior of religious people only, but i would like to see the rest of the conclusions of that study. for example, did they test other groups such as other religions, agnostics, and atheists? i think it is a reasonable hypothesis that most people will be more willing to help in situations where it garners them attention or praise than in situations where it does not. people naturally seek recognition for their deeds, and i see no reason why non-theists would be any different than theists in that regard

Sadly I know this to be true as someone religious and have seen this on a number of occasions. Hoewever, help is still help and giving money to charity is good regardless of your reasons why, so I don't think this is necessarily as bad as people think.

I think this is extremely dependent on the region and religious group. My family is filled with Christians (very moderate) and will do absolutely anything to help people just because it's the right thing to do.

Oddly enough, it's usually the Salvation Army members that fit the textbook's description (from my experience).

I am Jewish and in my opinion it is forbidden to avert one's eyes from someone in need, and help should be given in the way that most preserves the dignity of the individual/organization receiving the money. Since my fiance and I work for children's hospital we always give in secret and watch from a side how they enjoy what ever is a kid needed... She's atheist btw, so I guess we share our "beliefs" :)